DNA analysis of Paracas skulls found to be human-like creature.

Those skulls look a lot like plenty of other known known head binded skulls.

As for the DNA analysis, would be interesting to know the real results, chances are it could well be Neanderthal, if it was another species I am
certain there are many research faculties interested in such things, and seeing as various finds are being made public eg. Denisovan and Neanderthal
genome projects, there doesn't seem any purpose of hiding any details of this find.

Early examples of intentional human cranial deformation predate written history and date back to 45,000 BC in Neanderthal skulls from the Shanidar
Cave in Iraq. The earliest written record of cranial deformation dates to 400 BC in Hippocrates’ description of the Macrocephales people who were
named for their practice of cranial modification

If they bred anything like some of the Hispanic or Mormon families I have known they would be just fine.... no need for a huge breeding population,
just some good ol' Hispanic genes or some Mormon doctrine and a little southern touching and they would have had a population boom....

I really am just kidding... but I seriously doubt we can speculate they would have needed a huge breeding population since, if this really is a new
species, we know absolutely nothing about them, including their breeding needs or habits.

In other discussions, they said that head-binding wasn't physically possible. The brain's growth forces the skull to enlarge. If the skull is
constrained in any way, then the brain would push down into the brain stem and spinal cord, and kill the individual. Encephalitis is caused by the
brain building up more fluid than it should and deforming the shape of the skull.

If any individuals did have heads this shape, it must have been genetic.

Slight Plagiocephaly is routinely diagnosed at birth and may be the result of a restrictive intrauterine environment giving a "diamond" shaped
head when seen from above. If there is premature union of skull bones, this is more properly called craniosynostosis.

The incidence of plagiocephaly has increased dramatically since the advent of anti-Sudden Infant Death Syndrome recommendations for
parents to keep their babies on their backs. Treatments range from a simple repositioning of babies below the age of 5 months to more involved
treatment with a helmet for children under the age of 18 months

Oh, so, just leaving a baby to lay on its back for too long will cause cranial deformation naturally?
An this is common?
And there are special helmets available to treat this, to reshape a child's head to a more conventional shape?
Now? In modern Times?

Ayup.

Now roll back to primitive cultures that practice all sorts of body modifications, including genital mutilation, scarification, tattooing, neck
extension, head binding, piercings, etc.
The Human body in some respects is tolerant and adaptable to gradual modification and shaping.

Oh, maybe that E.T. movie with the little alien that had the light up finger was a true story and the lady above is living proof of species
interactions?
Uh, NO.

Wait ...

Still, NO.

People of all sorts of cultures do all sorts of effed up things to their bodies for all sorts of reasons, including head binding/artificial cranial
deformation.

It's just as wonderful and amazing in discovering these cultures, and even more so in learning about their customs, practices, beliefs, stories,
mythologies, as an examination of of the beautiful and often strange expressions of human culture.

What part of science don't you understand? Because that's not how the scientific method is supposed to work.
One's "credentials" are utterly irrelevant. All that matters is whether an experiment is performed under the proper conditions, whether it can be
reproduced, etc. It's all about the method. When you criticize a discovery based solely on its source it just makes you look like a bigot.

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as
an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of
scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on
something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary,
requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In
science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke
with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”

ah, because people with zero credibility, and no accreditation can be trusted to adhere to the rigorous methodologies developed to preserve the
integrity of Provenance, to handle any materials properly, and to do absolutely nothing to falsify or inject their own bias into their
investigations?

Accredited professionals have their careers and reputations on the line.

Some clown that wants Artificial Skull Deformation samples to be aliens?
They can get away with anything because, they have no reputation beyond selling "wow" from positions of false authority and even telling outright
lies.
They can say anything, and if caught out, there's no accountability, thus, they DO say anything.

Any data coming from such sources is thus unreliable. It's questionable and has no value.

Now, there are differing tolerances depending the Scientific Concentration.
A child with a telescope in their backyard could legitimately discover a new comet, so long as such is verified by the Legitimate, Credible
Astronomical Community.
The same could apply to the Maths where the work is verified by Professionals.
Concentrations where sample contamination is a problem even for the Accredited Experienced Academics? We then run into problems and thus strict
rigorous demanding protocols for observation of Provenance and many other sticky procedural protocols are called for where deviation or any
questionable bits about the process occur, the entire legitimacy of the project is brought into question.

Yes, I know a thing or two about Science.
Just a wee bit.

NO, not just anyone can go out and delve into any field of concentration, and make Legitimate discoveries.
Some concentrations, yes.

This concentration, NO.

Otherwise, anyone and everyone that ever claimed to have spotted the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, UFOs, etc, would by observation alone be counted as
observational indicators such to legitimize every floating log, mistaken bear sighting, or mylar balloon into a whole menagerie of suddenly
scientifically valid and 'confirmed' legitimate observations.

Besides that, the more important ANY thing is, the more weighted in Experience and Credentials anyone typically wants to have looking at any X
issue.
Otherwise, if you're going to trust the results of any old clown that comes along your results are going to be similar this:

Yup.

If you want something Important done, done correctly, observed correctly, with results that won't be questioned, then, have the Accredited
Professionals do it.

If you just want to be told what you want to hear, then, by all means, bring in the clowns.

I think our true history is much stranger than we yet realize. There is a history before the history that we are aware of. Some will automatically
scream 'Aliens' but I suspect we may be dealing with another possibly forgotten ancient hominid line from here on Terra Firma. I for one will
maintain an open mind and keep investigating...

Only time will tell eh?

As Always, Stay tuned

edit on 5-2-2014 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

I don't think it's likely that they belong to a forgotten hominid. For whatever reason head binding was practiced by people of higher social status
all around the world. There are still modern cultures who do it today. In the Congo you can find groups like the Mangbetu for example.

The only question I really have, is what the hell inspired it to be seen as a feature of higher status and intelligence in so many different cultures?
It's strange for such a modification to appear in Africa, Asia, Europe, Australia and North & South America. If it did belong to a forgotten hominid,
did all these cultures encounter it and accept it's status as superior? Alien theorists say it's inspired by an encounter they had. Whatever the
case I think we've seen them in enough human cultures to guess that they are humans. Who knows the true inspiration though.

Hah! You managed to fit the peg into the hole, but you sure had to cut a lot off of the peg. If the DNA had resembled a known hominid (such as
Denisovan or Neanderthal), it would have been recognized. That's why it was referred to as unknown.

I think a lot of science-minded people get caught up in the idea that since we humans know so much, new information must be somehow connected to
something known and understood. It's only natural; our brains store information by making connections. Becoming more and more clear is the reality
that we have only begun to piece together the puzzle of our existence.

The samples were sent to the late Lloyd Pye, founder of the Starchild Project, who delivered the samples to a geneticist in Texas for DNA
testing.

Did Lloyd Pye ever come across a skull that WAS human? This Pye character was a charlatan as far as I am concerned.

which piece of evidence do you have a problem with? what is it specifically that makes you think his is not a bona fide non-human? I'm pretty sure
the person who sent the samples knew Lloyd and trusted him for a reason. You can have your doubts in general but it would make you sound worthy of
those stars if you would talk about the evidence and not just get along by smearing the man. Actually now there is a whole incorporated group of
"charlatans" still working on the project. maybe you might want to check them all out personally so you can have something to argue about on this
subject because so far nobody can argue the newest information on the skull.

I don't think it's likely that they belong to a forgotten hominid. For whatever reason head binding was practiced by people of higher social status
all around the world.....

The only question I really have, is what the hell inspired it to be seen as a feature of higher status and intelligence in so many different cultures?
It's strange for such a modification to appear in Africa, Asia, Europe, Australia and North & South America. If it did belong to a forgotten hominid,
did all these cultures encounter it and accept it's status as superior? Alien theorists say it's inspired by an encounter they had. Whatever the
case I think we've seen them in enough human cultures to guess that they are humans. Who knows the true inspiration though.

Those are interesting questions aren't they?

What inspired them and why the perceived 'Higher Status' because of it? Peru seems to have the widest variety of skulls. The original study done
determined about 6 different types. My question is are they ALL just from deformation? Could one type be the original? If so, are they older? Are they
from a slightly different genetic line? *Which was later copied by those who venerated them?*

We wont know until there is a completely transparent modern scientific study done on all types.

Do you dedicate your life to ANYTHING? I doubt it. So what he sells books, big friggin deal. I have bought two of his books and they are great. Are
they 100% accurate? Probably not but it gives me A LOT to work with. I don't see you contributing anything to this type of study.

He has dedicated his life to this part of the world and these studies. How dare you cheapen what he does just because he sells books.

You bought two of his books... My condolences.
That nugget of info definitely lowers any relevance your comments could have...

Do you read anything or do you just run your mouth? Do you know how to read and then make your own conclusions with what has been presented in front
of you? I know I do. So please don't judge someone you clearly don't know. You are just an angry person because someone doesn't agree with you.

I have never read anything by Von Daniken. I don't really have much of an opinion on him but I do respect the time he has put into such topics. I
would rather listen to these guys than that idiot Hawass ANY DAY.

Right. Hawass is an "idiot" because you say so. I mean sure he LIVES on site and has spent more time excavating Egypt than pretty much anyone else
ever and sure he has actually devoted his life to getting his hands in the dirt to find the truth, but some guy on the internet who refuses to go with
facts and instead embraces theories which would make him soooooo much smarter than people who actually do the work has the right to call him an idiot
and dismiss his work with hand waving. Because, logic.

I wonder what data the Smithsonian has on these Paracas skulls. This institute is well aware of the existance of these skulls and has a habbit of
playing stupid when it comes to history altering evidence.

I suspect that the Smithsonian has done a thorough examination of these skull along time ago and have concluded something which the common folks
should not know..yet.

It is unthinkable for a scientist (read university) to ignore an ancient huge human skull but after close inspection is different.

Well, I'm an anthropologist. I've not seen this in any published paper, and I can't find any evidence of any peer review process on this.

Basically. It's making my BS meter go 'ding ding ding'.

I've also not seen any craniometric data for the skulls in any paper, and if any of the claims were true about them every bone fondler in the western
hemisphere would be breaking into a fever trying to get a hold of the skulls.

Also, that star child skull, not alien. Examine everything Pye claims in detail. Never gives the names of the scientists that are supposed to have
found weird DNA i it, or descibed it as being hybrid etc. It actually looks a lot like a kid with progeria.

rickymouse
S&F for bringing this to us. I know someone who has seen one of these skulls in person and there was no evidence of binding on the skull. The person
has the necessary schooling in this field also. Of course, he does not try to challenge the science governing this because he wants to retain his
credentials.

rickymouse
S&F for bringing this to us. I know someone who has seen one of these skulls in person and there was no evidence of binding on the skull. The person
has the necessary schooling in this field also. Of course, he does not try to challenge the science governing this because he wants to retain his
credentials.

What would "evidence of binding" be on a skull?

Why would he "lose his credentials?" They don't take your PhD away.

The binding makes some distinct impression marks on most of the skulls. On top of that the skull suture marks are different on the ones he saw. If a
person does not go along with the consensus of the time or their trained procedures, most professionals lose their right to engage in their
profession. You ought to know this, you are a doctor.

I'm a builder, if I don't follow a designed set of rules they pull my license. Lots of the practices used in home building don't meet my personal
standards, I tend to overbuild things to last a long time. I do have the ability to deny the job if my standards cause conflict but not to alter the
construction from the requirements. I had to get a written statement from the truss manufacturer that putting the trusses used at 24 inches OC could
be used at 16 inches on center. There had to be certified engineering information included. All the load ratings jumped way up. My friends roof
could support the weight of three D9 Caterpiller buldozers...yet I had to follow the rules or I couldn't put them at 16" oc.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.